Lay Brothers, Inc. appeals the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment to Golden Pantry Food Stores, Inc. We affirm for the reasons set forth below. This case was previously before this court in Golden Pantry Food Stores, Inc. v. Lay Brothers, Inc. ,1 in which Golden Pantry appealed the trial court’s judgment, entered on a jury verdict, in favor of Lay Brothers. As we explained, this suit arose following the expiration of a lease between Golden Pantry, as lessee, and Harold and Edwina Lay, as lessors. Lay Brothers, Inc., asserts that, through an assignment, it is the successor in interest to Harold and Edwina Lay and is thus authorized to bring this action. Lay Brothers and Golden Pantry are business competitors in the business of convenience stores. The Lays leased the premises to Golden Pantry to operate a convenience store for ten years, plus a five year extension. At the end of that period Golden Pantry was to vacate the premises and remove its trade fixtures. After this was done, inspection of the premises under current environmental rules revealed some fuel contamination on the site and damage to the premises. After the term of the lease, Lay Brothers acquired the premises and began preparations to operate its own gasoline station and convenience store on the site. Even though Golden Pantry’s lease ended in October 1998 and Lay Brothers wanted to take possession on November 1, 1998, Lay Brothers could not start operation of the convenience store until August 1999. Because Golden Pantry allegedly did not surrender the premises on time and in proper condition, Lay Brothers filed this action contending that Golden Pantry 1 failed to surrender the premises within a reasonable time after the termination of the lease, 2 removed improvements that should have remained on the premises, 3 failed to repair damage to the premises caused by its removal of trade fixtures, 4 failed to turn over the premises in as good a condition as when the premises was leased, and 5 thus breached the lease. Lay Brothers also contended that it was entitled to an award of attorney fees and expenses of litigation under OCGA § 13-6-11.2 We reversed the judgment and remanded the case because the trial court erred in denying Golden Pantry’s motion for directed verdict on lost profit damages.3 We also provided that, if raised during further proceedings, the trial court should consider “in accordance with our time-honored principles of contract construction,” the validity of the lease assignment and whether under the terms of the lease Golden Pantry was entitled to remove a canopy from the premises.4
On remand, Golden Pantry renewed its motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted in part. Lay Brothers contends the trial court erred in finding i the canopy was a trade fixture as a matter of law and the parties’ intended to treat the canopy as a trade fixture in unambiguous language, ii Lay Brothers was limited to nominal damages on its claim for damage to the leased premises, and iii Lay Brothers could not recover attorney’s fees. We disagree.
